Insurrection would have been much better if they just trimmed out the worthless komedy. The moral dilemma is a Star Trek staple, but not necessarily a "movie" staple, which is why so many big stupid movies are the most successful. Insurrection shouldn't have been stupid but it's certainly injured by the stupidity injected by the afformentioned komedy.

Although, I must say, and yes it's my own shot komedy but I'm not being paid for this post, but if they wanted to show age regression, they should have put the wig Checkov wore in Catspaw on Picard. I'd pay to see that.

I can't help my own emotional reaction either when I see people parade TMP, INS and NEM as great works of art. They have their moments, even The Final Frontier has it's moments, but they will always be failed Treks to me. I will always view those who laud those movies with heavy praise as the cult within the cult being elitist and snobby.

Mainstream critics should matter to most people that support Trek.

Click to expand...

I find this view incredibly shallow and anti-individual, it has to be said.

The only Trek films I'd say are great works of art are Wrath of Khan and The Motion Picture. My other favourite Trek films are Undiscovered Country and First Contact, but they're just above average adventure shlock. Insurrection and The Final Frontier are messes but they entertain me, therefore they fulfill their purpose.

I will always view those who laud those movies with heavy praise as the cult within the cult being elitist and snobby.

Click to expand...

It's not elitist if it's not meant to actually change what kind of movies they make, to some less inclusive direction. I don't know if even doing that would be elitist. They could do a poop comedy that no-one likes, it would be a different, smaller business but I guess it's debatable if doing a movie with endless mumbling narration would be an elitist move or just a change of businesses from whatever circumstances.

Not that that had anything to do with anything, here people just say what they like and dislike, with no elitist or any other agenda to change anything, so it's the same everyone else is doing, only the likes and dislikes may be similar to those of some elitists, it's just chattering.

One thing that isn't often remembered is that Insurrection got a lot of good press at the time it was released. I remember a lot of the movie reviews in newspapers etc were at the very least complimentary about it, indeed many of them were completely positive! How the movie's reputation managed to go from that to being "one of the worst movies in the entire franchise" is something of a mystery.

Unfortunately, Insurrection was never good, so this point doesn't really apply.

Click to expand...

LOL, well, sorry sir, I bow to your wisdom.
I rate Trek movies based on several measures, and Insurrection seemed to me to be a very good extended TNG episode. Glad to know I was wrong, and I shall make my positronic brain aware of this so that I can dislike any number of Trek movies based on your personal preference.
Can you download specs so that I can enjoy a bad time watching Trek similarly to you?

Hmm, well since several movies are being mentioned here I'll chip in with MO.

In general, TNG movies were severely hurt by Paramount's complete lack of faith in TNG being a successful movie franchise, and therefore only providing shoestring budgets for the TNG films. (Fuck you Paramount! ) But they did have faith in the JJ reboot and forked over the cash for that one, and look how it turned out (singlehandedly resurrecting the Star Trek name, albeit as a different being to the original).

Money problems aside though, IMO the biggest problems with Insurrection are the following:

1. The whole story is booooooooring! The premise is that Picard and crew are rebelling against the Federation to save people that need their help. This severely falls flat on its face when we find out that these people not only *don't* need to be saved, but also don't *want* to be saved. They come across as arrogant assholes who are not worthy of the sacrifice the Enterprise crew is making for them.

So this causes the problem that you don't care about their plight, and you don't care if Picard and crew are successful in their quest, so the whole thing is dreadfully boring to watch, because you as the viewer are not engaged in the story at all.

It doesn't help that due to the shoe string budget, all they can do for 70% of the movie is run across California hills and cave sets.

2. The lameness of the jokes. I have no idea who's idea was it to write boob and zit jokes and actually think they are funny. Didn't they have test audiences to gauge the reactions? I have to say they probably didn't, and thought their shit didn't stink.

3. Gimmicks like the joystick. Shit that was a cringe inducing moment. What were they thinking?

A typical audience would think of this movie as simply mediocre, and nothing special at all.

How the movie's reputation managed to go from that to being "one of the worst movies in the entire franchise" is something of a mystery.

Click to expand...

It wasn't 'epic', therefore it ends up on the crap list. Just 'good' is good enough no more it seems.

Click to expand...

Lack of being 'epic' had nothing to do with why I dislike the movie. I've always said the tag line for the film should be "Yuppies battle eminent domain!"

Picard's "smug" factor is set on thirteen on a scale of one to ten. We have him using women and children as human shields. The pretty white people are the downtrodden and those who aren't so pretty are "evil" including Dougherty.

From my perspective, Insurrection is the most shallow entry of the movie series and makes "message" episodes like "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" look subtle in comparison. YMMV.

Picard's "smug" factor is set on thirteen on a scale of one to ten. We have him using women and children as human shields. The pretty white people are the downtrodden and those who aren't so pretty are "evil" including Dougherty.

From my perspective, Insurrection is the most shallow entry of the movie series and makes "message" episodes like "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" look subtle in comparison. YMMV.

Click to expand...

You present a good argument from that POV. But I don't have that POV myself.

Picard's "smug" factor is set on thirteen on a scale of one to ten. We have him using women and children as human shields. The pretty white people are the downtrodden and those who aren't so pretty are "evil" including Dougherty.

From my perspective, Insurrection is the most shallow entry of the movie series and makes "message" episodes like "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" look subtle in comparison. YMMV.

Click to expand...

You present a good argument from that POV. But I don't have that POV myself.

In general, TNG movies were severely hurt by Paramount's complete lack of faith in TNG being a successful movie franchise, and therefore only providing shoestring budgets for the TNG films. (Fuck you Paramount! ) But they did have faith in the JJ reboot and forked over the cash for that one, and look how it turned out (singlehandedly resurrecting the Star Trek name, albeit as a different being to the original).

Click to expand...

To be completely fair, they didn't spend any less on TNG than they did on TOS did they? All the Trek movies between 1982 and 2002 were done on a (relative) shoestring. Paramount always seemed to see Trek as an easy sell. Spend less $$$, make more $$$. Abrams Trek was arguably the first movie that was truly given the budget that the franchise deserved all along.

Chrisisall said:

Lance said:

How the movie's reputation managed to go from that to being "one of the worst movies in the entire franchise" is something of a mystery.

Click to expand...

It wasn't 'epic', therefore it ends up on the crap list. Just 'good' is good enough no more it seems.

Click to expand...

That being said, the irony is that Insurrection is epic on the surface. It's got the most location shooting of any Trek movie save the 1986 set Trek IV, with masses of extras on site, etc. But despite the evident expense of all those big scale lake shots etc (can't have been cheap!), the final movie still ends up looking like the purse strings have been sewn shut compared to the mostly studio-bound First Contact. That's even more baffling. It appears to have been a more expensive movie, but it just feels cheaper. I blame that on the script. Insurrection just hasn't got the ambition of First Contact, and no amount of money being thrown at the production could change that.

The trouble with Generations is the Nexus, but more particularly that the entire plot hangs on it. We're constantly told that it's this wonderful realm that nobody ever wants to leave, but because Picard doesn't enter it until the final act we get a very rushed view of it. Jean Luc ends up leaving far too easily because, hey, the plot requires him to see through the facade and then convice Kirk to do the same. What that movie really needed was to have thrown Picard into the Nexus far earlier. They should have shown more of Picard being genuinely seduced by the fantasy lifestyle of having a wife and kids, but only gradually coming to realise how superficial and fake it all is. They could even have gone the whole hog on the It's A Wonderful Life thing with somebody (the Guinnan echo?) convincing him that he needs to leave because his absence from reality makes such a difference, maybe show him flashes of how real life gets affected by him not being there. Instead, it just seems to be seeing those fancy Christmas decorations blowing up which snaps him out of it. Which happens, like, thirty seconds after he enters the Nexus, and only then because the plot demands it. As a concept the Nexus has got potential, but that movie just blows it all.